RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).
Assuntos
Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Qualidade de Vida , Doença da Artéria CoronarianaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Medicare Part C , Idoso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction frequently coexist. The AATAC (Ablation versus Amiodarone for Treatment of persistent Atrial fibrillation in patients with Congestive heart failure and an implantable device) trial suggests that catheter ablation may benefit these patients. However, applicability to contemporary ambulatory cardiology practice is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the outpatient National Cardiovascular Data Registry® Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry, we identified participants meeting AATAC enrollment criteria between 2013 and 2014. Treatment with medications and procedures was assessed at registry inclusion. From 164 166 patients with AF and heart failure, 8483 (7%) patients potentially met AATAC inclusion criteria. Eligible subjects, compared to AATAC trial participants, were older (mean age, 71.2±11.4 years) and had greater comorbidity (coronary artery disease 79.2%, hypertension 82.4%, and diabetes mellitus 31.8%). AF was predominantly paroxysmal (65.5%), rather than persistent/permanent (16.7%) or new onset (17.8%), whereas all patients in the AATAC trial had persistent AF. Commonly used atrioventricular-nodal blocking agents were carvedilol (71.2%), digoxin (31.9%), and metoprolol (27.1%). Rhythm control with anti-arrhythmic drugs was reported in 29.0% of AATAC eligible patients (predominantly amiodarone [24.6%]) and 9.3% had undergone catheter ablation. Patients who underwent ablation were more likely to be younger and have less comorbidities than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Among the contemporary ambulatory AF/heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population, treatment is predominantly rate control with few catheter ablations. Application of AATAC findings has the potential to markedly increase the use of catheter ablation in this population, although significant differences in clinical profiles might influence ablation outcomes in practice.
Assuntos
Antiarrítmicos/uso terapêutico , Fibrilação Atrial/terapia , Ablação por Cateter/tendências , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Padrões de Prática Médica/tendências , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antiarrítmicos/efeitos adversos , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilação Atrial/epidemiologia , Fibrilação Atrial/fisiopatologia , Ablação por Cateter/efeitos adversos , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Seleção de Pacientes , Sistema de Registros , Fatores de Risco , Volume Sistólico , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Função Ventricular EsquerdaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to examine practice-level variation in rates of guideline-recommended treatment for outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, and to examine the association between treatment variation and practice site, independent of patient factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiology practices participating in the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from July 2008 to December 2010 were evaluated. Practice rates of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and ß-blockers and an optimal combined treatment measure were determined for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and no documented contraindications. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were adjusted for demographics, insurance status, and comorbidities. A median rate ratio was calculated for each therapy, which describes the likelihood that the treatment of a patient with given comorbidities would differ at 2 randomly selected practices. We identified 12 556 patients from 45 practices. The unadjusted practice-level prescription rates ranged from 44% to 100% for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (median, 85%; interquartile range, 75%-89%), from 49% to 100% for ß-blockers (median, 92%; interquartile range, 83%-95%), and from 37% to 100% for optimal combined treatment (median, 79%; interquartile range, 66%-85%). The adjusted median rate ratio was 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.18) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers therapy, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.15) for ß-blockers therapy, and 1.17 (1.13-1.26) for optimal combined treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the use of guideline-recommended medications for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction exists in the outpatient setting. Addressing practice-level differences may be an important component of improving quality of care for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.